Skip to content


Mohitosh Dutta Vs. Satish Chandra Chaudhuri and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject Civil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1931Cal92,129Ind.Cas.880
AppellantMohitosh Dutta
RespondentSatish Chandra Chaudhuri and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....contended that mukerji, j., had no jurisdiction to grant the rule. he contends that the present rule relates to a suit of the value of over rs. 1,000 and a judge sitting alone can only deal with applications relating to suits up to the value of rs. 1,000. mr. sen who has appeared for the petitioner, receiver, contends that it , is not the value of the suit which determines the forum. he seems to contend that in the present case, as he puts it, the value of the case is rs. 550, because the property in question was sold for rs. 550. he therefore contends that this application relates to a case under rs. 1,000. clause 3, schedule to e., 1, oh. 2 of the high court rules appellate side (p. 5) which specifies the matters competent for one judge to hear runs as follows:second appeals up to.....
Judgment:

Cuming, J.

1. A preliminary objection has been raised by the opposite party to this rule that Mukerji, J., had no jurisdiction to issue this rule. The facts would appear to be these: The plaintiff sued the defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,332 odd. The suit in question was heard by the Munsif at Sealdah exercising powers up to Rs. 2,000 and it was decreed for the whole amount plus costs in all for Rs. 1,584. The plaintiff then took out execution for a sum of Rs. 1,611 being the amount of the decree and interests. A certain property was put up to sale and sold for Rs. 550. Meanwhile the defendant in that suit had been declared an insolvent and the receiver in insolvency made an application to the Court to set aside the sale on the ground that the property at the time of the sale was vested not in the defendant but in the receiver and therefore could not be sold in execution of the decree. The learned Munsif who heard this application set aside the sale. The plaintiff then applied to the Munsif for a review. This review was granted and the sale was restored. The receiver then appealed to the District Judge and this appeal was dismissed. The receiver has now moved and obtained this rule from Mukerji, J., sitting alone. The opposite party has contended that Mukerji, J., had no jurisdiction to grant the rule. He contends that the present rule relates to a suit of the value of over Rs. 1,000 and a Judge sitting alone can only deal with applications relating to suits up to the value of Rs. 1,000. Mr. Sen who has appeared for the petitioner, receiver, contends that it , is not the value of the suit which determines the forum. He seems to contend that in the present case, as he puts it, the value of the case is Rs. 550, because the property in question was sold for Rs. 550. He therefore contends that this application relates to a case under Rs. 1,000. Clause 3, Schedule to E., 1, Oh. 2 of the High Court Rules Appellate Side (p. 5) which specifies the matters competent for one Judge to hear runs as follows:

Second appeals up to the value of Rs. 1,000 and applications for revision under Section 115, Civil P.C., in cases up to that value.

2. And there is a foot note to the effect that

every application for revision shall state the value of the suit to which the application relates.

3. The interpretation which I put on the rule is that it means that the value of the original suit out of which an application arises must not be above Rs. 1,000. Execution proceedings are clearly proceedings arising out of a suit. I think therefore that the opposite party is correct in saying that the application relates to a suit of the value of more than Rs. 1,000 and that Mukerji, J., had no power to deal with it.

4. The correct course, I think, in the present case would be to discharge the present rule as incompetent having been granted by a Court which had no power to grant it, leaving it open to the petitioner, if he is so advised, to move the proper Court. For this purpose the present application will be returned to him. The rule is accordingly discharged with costs. Hearing-fee two gold mohurs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //